Gilbert: Don't raise any tax. Eliminate individual income tax as soon as possible. Do away with corporate welfare. Eliminate any boards that can't justify existence. No income tax is fair to everybody.
Eliminates need for minimum wage because everybody gets a raise.

Ross: Support lower tax rates. Nothing fair about tax rates. Will make changes just like Beebe did with grocery tax.

Drake: Those who make more should pay more in taxes to eliminate sales tax across state. Minimum wage needs to be raised.

Voted YES on extending AMT exemptions to avoid hitting middle-income.

extend through 2008 the offset of personal tax credits against AMT tax liabilities;

treat net income and loss from an investment services partnership interest as ordinary income and loss;

deny major integrated oil companies a tax deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil or gas.

Wikipedia.com Explanation: The AMT became operative in 1970. It was intended to target 155 high-income households that had been eligible for so many tax benefits that they owed little or no income tax under the tax code of the time. However, when Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the AMT was greatly expanded to aim at a different set of deductions that most Americans receive.

The AMT sets a minimum tax rate of 26% or 28% on some taxpayers so that they cannot use
certain types of deductions to lower their tax. By contrast, the rate for a corporation is 20%. Affected taxpayers are those who have what are known as "tax preference items". These include long-term capital gains, accelerated depreciation, & percentage depletion.

Because the AMT is not indexed to inflation, an increasing number of upper-middle-income taxpayers have been finding themselves subject to this tax. In 2006, an IRS report highlighted the AMT as the single most serious problem with the tax code.

For 2007, the AMT Exemption was not fully phased until [income reaches] $415,000 for joint returns. Within the $150,000 to $415,000 range, AMT liability typically increases as income increases above $150,000.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This vote extends the AMT exemption, and hence avoids the AMT affecting more upper-middle-income people. This vote has no permanent effect on the AMT, although voting YES implies that one would support the same permanent AMT change.

Voted NO on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit.

Vote to pass a bill that would permanently extend the $1,000 per child tax credit that is scheduled to revert to $700 per child in 2005. It would raise the amount of income a taxpayer may earn before the credit begins to phase out from $75,000 to $125,000 for single individuals and from $110,000 to $250,000 for married couples. It also would permit military personnel to include combat pay in their gross earnings in order to calculate eligibility for the child tax credit.

Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty.

Vote to pass a bill that would permanently extend tax provisions eliminating the so-called marriage penalty. The bill would make the standard deduction for married couples double that of single taxpayers. It would also increase the upper limit of the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples to twice that of singles. It also would make permanent higher income limits for married couples eligible to receive the refundable earned-income tax credit.

Voted NO on making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Vote to pass a bill that would permanently extend the cuts in last year's $1.35 trillion tax reduction package, many of which are set to expire in 2010. It would extend relief of the marriage penalty, reductions in income tax rates, doubling of the child tax credit, elimination of the estate tax, and the expansion of pension and education provisions. The bill also would revise a variety of Internal Revenue Service tax provisions, including interest, and penalty collection provisions. The penalties would change for the failure to pay estimated taxes; waive minor, first-time error penalties; exclude interest on unintentional overpayments from taxable income; and allow the IRS greater discretion in the disciplining of employees who have violated policies.

Voted NO on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years.

Vote to pass a bill that would cut all income tax rates and make other tax cuts of $958.2 billion over 10 years. The bill would convert the five existing tax rate brackets, which range from 15 to 39.6 percent, to a system of four brackets with rates of 10 to 33 percent.

50-25-25 budget formula for debt-tax cuts-spending.

Ross adopted the Blue Dog Coalition press release:

The 33 member Blue Dog Coalition applauds Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) for his commitment to fiscal responsibility. In a floor speech today, Senator Lieberman called for a budget framework that would devote half of the budget surplus to debt reduction, a quarter of the remaining funds to tax cuts, the final quarter to targeted spending increases in America’s priority programs. Senator Lieberman touted a mantra long held by the Blue Dogs that “our top priority must remain debt reduction.”

Senator Lieberman’s position closely reflects the “50-25-25” equation for responsible budgeting long advocated by the Blue Dog Coalition. The Blue Dogs’ formula would extract the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds from the projected budget surplus and use half of the remaining funds to pay down the national debt. After committing 50 percent to debt reduction, 25 percent would be allocated to tax cuts and the remaining
25 percent would fund increases in priority programs, such as education, agriculture, defense, and health care. “The 50-25-25 budget framework is a common sense, fiscally conservative approach that will provide for a healthy economy, lower taxes, and reduction of our national debt. I am pleased that Senator Lieberman stressed the need for fiscal discipline,” said Blue Dog Budget Task Force Co-Chairman, Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS).

“Senator Lieberman got it exactly right,” said Blue Dog Co-Chairman Rep. Jim Turner (D-TX). “We need a budget that meets our commitments and lives up to our responsibilities. Most importantly, we need a budget that adds up. The 50-25-25 framework is a smart, conservative, approach that prioritizes paying down the debt and still leaves room for real tax relief.”

Every year National Taxpayers Union (NTU) rates U.S. Representatives and Senators on their actual votes—every vote that significantly affects taxes, spending, debt, and regulatory burdens on consumers and taxpayers. NTU assigned weights to the votes, reflecting the importance of each vote’s effect. NTU has no partisan axe to grind. All Members of Congress are treated the same regardless of political affiliation. Our only constituency is the overburdened American taxpayer. Grades are given impartially, based on the Taxpayer Score. The Taxpayer Score measures the strength of support for reducing spending and regulation and opposing higher taxes. In general, a higher score is better because it means a Member of Congress voted to lessen or limit the burden on taxpayers.
The Taxpayer Score can range between zero and 100. We do not expect anyone to score a 100, nor has any legislator ever scored a perfect 100 in the multi-year history of the comprehensive NTU scoring system. A high score does not mean that the Member of Congress was opposed to all spending or all programs. High-scoring Members have indicated that they would vote for many programs if the amount of spending were lower. A Member who wants to increase spending on some programs can achieve a high score if he or she votes for offsetting cuts in other programs. A zero score would indicate that the Member of Congress approved every spending proposal and opposed every pro-taxpayer reform.

Citizens for Tax Justice, founded in 1979, is not-for-profit public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation. CTJ's mission is to give ordinary people a greater voice in the development of tax laws.
Against the armies of special interest lobbyists for corporations and the wealthy, CTJ fights for: